Shri Vipin Kumar Pitliya HUF, Ratlam Vs. ITO-1, Ratlam

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee-HUF filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,40,090/-. The return was subjected to scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the bank account during the demonetization period. The AO found that the assessee had taken cash loans of Rs. 13,50,000/- from different persons through two brokers. The AO made an addition of Rs. 6,30,000/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act due to unverified loans. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who changed the applicable section from 69A to 68 and upheld the addition. The assessee further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under section 68 of the Act as against section 69A of the Act made by the ld. AO?
• 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,30,000/- made by the AO needs to be deleted?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Manjeet Singh vs ITO

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• ITA No.6096/MUM/2026

  Mumbai bench

• Ayub Khan Vs. The ITO

  Jodhpur bench

• Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Vivek Gupta

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Suresh Kumar Banthia vs DCIT, CC 4(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata benchAY 2016-17Dismissed

• Pushpakant Punjalal Chokshi vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench